Terror in NYC: The Real Test Comes Tomorrow, Not Today

New York City officials are already calling Tuesday’s awful attack in downtown Manhattan “an act of terror.” Whether they are right remains to be seen; but, if so, the real test comes tomorrow, not today. That is, today our first responders have been doing what they always do: selflessly and swiftly putting their own lives on the line to care for others. But, tomorrow, our nation’s eyes must turn to the broader response by our leaders in Washington, and by President Trump in particular. Terrorism is, at bottom, a strategy of provocation: It tries to get us to do to ourselves what fundamentally weaker adversaries—terrorists—cannot accomplish on their own.

To be clear, tonight we must begin to mourn the dead, and to acknowledge the tragic loss of human life that an attack like today’s inflicts. I believe firmly that our government owes it to the American people to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent these types of deaths from terrorism, as they are terrible in themselves and, what’s more, they tend to provoke terrible chain reactions politically, economically, and diplomatically.

Tomorrow, even as our hearts remain heavy, we also must worry about how our nation’s leaders respond—because it’s that response that terrorists target, as much as the specific individuals whom terrorists horrifically kill and maim. Terrorists seek to provoke overreaction in many forms: disproportionate military responses that vindicate terrorists’ narrative about the countries they target; fiscally draining foreign adventures that bleed target countries’ economic well-being; recriminations against allies and partners for not doing enough to counter terrorism that drive a wedge in key coalitions; rhetoric that splits people apart by ethnicity and religion; and domestic crackdowns that splinter populations and radicalize politics.

Whether an attack like Tuesday’s achieves these objectives is no longer predominantly in the terrorists’ hands—it’s in ours, or at least those of our leadership. Will our leaders use the military as an appropriate tool in focusing on the continuing, critically important campaigns against ISIS and al-Qa’ida, or will they allow the attack to induce tactically inapt responses? Will vile acts like these inspire the United States to get dragged into costly operations on foreign soil without clear objectives and articulable conclusions, or will they maintain a savvy, partner-centric approach where possible that allows the United States to utilize its comparative advantage while drawing on the capacities of partners on the ground? Will such acts lead to misplaced accusations against foreign countries, whose cooperation is vital to sustainable counterterrorism, of being “soft” on terrorists and thus sow discord with those whose help we need?

Filed under:

About the Author(s)

Founding Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, former Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Council, and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice. Member of the editorial board of Just Security. Follow him on Twitter (@jgeltzer).